Pilot Implementation Using Geofoam

for Repair of Bridge Approach Slabs

Anand J. Puppala, Ph.D., P.E., DGE, F.ASCE

Distinguished Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering
Director, Sustainable and Resilient Civil Infrastructure (SARCI) Center
The University of Texas at Arlington (UTA)
www.uta.edu/sarci

SARCI
 2

Bump at the End of Bridge

40% TxDOT Bridges Have Bump Issues
Annual Maintenance Costs - $7 Millions – Seo
(2003)
Courtesy: URETEK
 3

Bump at the end of the bridge

Foundation Soils Embankment backfill materials

1. Excavation and replacement 1. Geosynthetic reinforcement

2. Preloading surcharge loads 2. Use of MSE wall

3. Vertical drains 3. Grouting

4. Stone columns 4. Use of lightweight fill materials.

5. Deep soil mixing others
others

SARCI
 4

Lightweight Materials
Use of lightweight fill materials for mitigating bridge
approach settlement:

SARCI
 5

Lightweight Materials
Densities and approximate costs of various
lightweight fill materials (FHWA NHI-05-037)
Materials Density Approximate cost
kg/m3 lb/ft3 $/m3 $/ft3
EPS geofoam 12 to 46 0.75 to 2.85 40 to 85 1.2 to 2.4

Cellular (foamed) concrete 320 to 970 20.0 to 60.5 40 to 55 1.2 to 1.6

Shredded tires 600 to 900 37.5 to 56.2 20 to 30 0.6 to 0.8

Expanded shale and clay 600 to 1040 37.5 to 65.0 40 to 55 1.2 to 1.6

SARCI
 6

EPS Geofoam
Expanded Polystyrene (EPS) Geofoam:

 ASTM D-4439: a block or

planar rigid cellular foamed
polymeric material used in
geotechnical engineering
applications.

 It has been widely used around the world as a fill

material for more than 30 years.

SARCI
 7

EPS Geofoam
Advantages of EPS Geofoam:
 About 100 times lighter than soils.

 At least 20 to 30 times lighter than other lightweight fill

alternatives.

 Easy to handle

Expedites construction process

Limited labor

SARCI
 8

EPS Geofoam
Advantages of EPS Geofoam:
 About 100 times lighter than soils.

 At least 20 to 30 times lighter than other lightweight fill

alternatives.

 Easy to handle

Expedites construction process

Limited labor

SARCI
 9

Implementation of EPS Geofoam

Location: US 67 bridge over SH 174, Johnson County,

Cleburne, Texas
SARCI
 10

Implementation of EPS Geofoam

Bump at the end of the bridge:
• Test Section - US 67 over SH 174 in Johnson County, Texas
• Abutments supported by drilled shaft foundation
• More than 17 in. of settlement observed since
construction in 1995

SARCI
 11

Geofoam Construction
 EPS 22 geofoam blocks: top 6 ft depth

 Geofoam installation period: 3-4 days

 Test section construction period: January – February 2012

SARCI
 12

Geofoam Installation
 Process of EPS geofoam installation

SARCI
 13

Geofoam – Lightweight Fill Material

Instrumentation- Horizontal Inclinometers, Pressure Cells
PC #1 PC #2

PC #3 PC #4

SARCI
 14

Site Visit and Data Collection

 The site visits have been conducted at least once a month
from January 2012.

 During the visit, the data from horizontal inclinometers

and pressure cells are measured and recorded.

SARCI
 15

Site Visit and Data Collection

_ _
US 67 1 . US 67 2
.

Cumulative Displacement (in) from 1/30/2012

Cumulative Displacement (in) from 1/30/2012

01/30/12 1 75 01/30/12
1 75
02/07/12 02/07/12
02/14/12 02/14/12
. .
1 50 03/06/12 1 50 03/06/12
04/18/12 04/18/12
05/23/12 05/23/12
. .
1 25 06/20/12 1 25 06/20/12
07/20/12
07/20/12
. 08/29/12
1 00
. 08/29/12
11/30/12 1 00 11/30/12
12/21/12
01/13/13
. 01/13/13 .
0 75 02/17/13
02/17/13 0 75
03/11/13
03/11/13
04/13/13
. 04/13/13 .
0 50 05/20/13 0 50 05/20/13
06/18/13
06/18/13
. 07/19/13
0 25 07/19/13 .
08/21/13 0 25 08/21/13
09/19/13 09/19/13
. 10/18/13 . 10/18/13
0 00 0 00
12/05/13 06/17/14
01/16/14 07/18/14
- .
0 25 02/14/14 - . 08/15/14
03/21/14
0 25
- . 04/18/14
0 50 05/23/14 - .
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 0 50
06/17/14
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
07/18/14
Length of inclinometer casing in feet 08/15/14
Len th of inclinometer casin in feet
_
. US 67 3
Cumulative Displacement (in) from 1/30/2012

1 75 01/30/12 _
02/07/12 .
Cumulative Displacement (in) from 1/30/2012 US 67 4
02/14/12 1 75 01/30/12
.
1 50 03/06/12 02/07/12
04/18/12 . 02/14/12
1 50 03/06/12
. 05/23/12
1 25 06/20/12
04/18/12
. 05/23/12
07/20/12 1 25
06/20/12
. 08/29/12
1 00 07/20/12
11/30/12 .
1 00 08/29/12
02/17/13 11/30/12
. 03/11/13
0 75 01/13/13
04/13/13 .
0 75 02/17/13
05/20/13 03/11/13
.
0 50 06/18/13
. 04/13/13
07/19/13 0 50 05/20/13
08/21/13 06/18/13
.
0 25 09/19/13 . 07/19/13
10/18/13 0 25 08/21/13
09/19/13
. 12/05/13
0 00 01/16/14 . 10/18/13
0 00 12/05/13
02/14/14
01/16/14
- . 03/21/14
- .
0 25 04/18/14 0 25
02/14/14
03/21/14
05/23/14
04/18/14
- . 06/17/14 - .

SARCI
0 50 0 50 05/23/14
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 07/18/14 06/17/14
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
08/15/14 07/18/14
Len th of inclinometer casin in feet Length of inclinometer casing in feet 08/15/14
 16

Site Visit and Data Collection

8

Pressure (psi)

2
PC #1
PC #2

0
Mar-15 Apr-15 May-15 Jun-15 Jul-15 Aug-15
Time (Month-Year)
• The data presented in the plots was collected from March 2015
• PC #1 and PC #2 were installed horizontally at 2 ft. (0.6 m) and 8 ft. (2.4 m) under the pavement surface.

SARCI
 17

Analysis of Field Data

Prediction of a Long Term Settlement of the Test
Embankment:
 Predicted from the collected field data.
 Using Hyperbolic method (Lin and Wong, 1999).
 The hyperbolic relationship between the settlement and time:
𝒕 𝒕
= 𝜶 + 𝜷(𝒕) or 𝑺=
𝑺 (𝜶+ 𝜷𝜷)

𝒕 = time from the start of embankment fill (days);

𝑺 = measured settlement as any specific time (mm);
𝒕
𝜷 = gradient of the straight line between 𝒕 and ; and
𝑺
𝒕
𝜶 = intersection of the straight line on the axis.
𝑺
 18

Analysis of Field Data

Prediction of a Long Term Settlement of the Test
Embankment:
 By plotting the data with the function of time-settlement ratio,
the values of 𝜷 and 𝜶 can be determined.
.
35 0
 Substituting 𝜷 and 𝜶 back
.
Time/Settlement (days/mm)

30 0
𝒕
into the Equation 𝑺 = ,
(𝜶+ 𝜷𝜷)
.
25 0

.
20 0 the settlement at several
.
15 0
times can be calculate and
.
10 0
the plot between the
.
50

.
settlement and time can be
00
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

Time da s
provided.
 19

Prediction of Long Term Settlement

Time (days)
. 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
00 0

.
02 5

. 10
04
Settlement (in )
.

. 15
06

mm
. 20
08

. 25
10

. 30
12

. 35
14

. 40
16
 The total settlements of 1.42 in. and 1.50 in. are
predicted to occur at 10 year and 20-years intervals. SARCI
 20

Numerical Modeling of Geofoam

Embankment
Geometry of the Test Embankment Section:

Material Properties:
• Properties of the embankment fill and foundation soil were derived
from the laboratory test results.
• Properties of EPS 22 geofoam provided in ASTM D 6817-07 were
used.
 21

Numerical Modeling of Geofoam

Embankment System
Results of the Numerical Modeling:
Time (days)
. 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
00 0

Vertical Displacement (inch)

02 5

Vertical Dis lacement mm

. 10
04

. 15
06

. 20
08

. 25
10

. 30
12

. 35
14

. 40
16

• Contours of the total vertical displacement

on the EPS geofoam embankment model
after full dissipation of pore pressure.

• The vertical displacement – time plots at

points A, B, C, D, and E.
 22

Development of Design Charts

Design charts to evaluate minimum thickness of EPS
geofoam layer
𝑭𝑭
𝑺𝒖 = [∆𝝈𝒑𝒑𝒑𝒑𝒑𝒑𝒑𝒑 + ∆𝝈𝒕𝒕𝒕𝒕𝒕𝒕𝒕 + ∆𝝈𝒇𝒇𝒇𝒇 𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎 ]
𝟓. 𝟏𝟏
𝝈𝒐, 𝒑𝒑𝒑𝒑𝒑𝒑𝒑𝒑 𝑾
∆𝝈𝒑𝒑𝒑𝒑𝒑𝒑𝒑𝒑 =
𝑾+ 𝑯𝑬𝑬𝑬.
𝝈𝒐, 𝒕𝒕𝒕𝒕𝒕𝒕𝒕 𝑾
∆𝝈𝒕𝒕𝒕𝒕𝒕𝒕𝒕 = Undrained Shear Strength, Su (kPa)

𝑾+ 𝑯𝑬𝑬𝑬. 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130

Minimum Thickness of EPS Geofoam Layer (ft)

Minimum Thickness of EPS Geofoam La er m

. .
50 0 15 0
Embakment Height = 50 ft .
𝜸𝑬𝑬𝑬 𝑨𝑬𝑬𝑬 + 𝜸𝒇𝒇𝒇𝒇 𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔 𝑨𝒇𝒇𝒇𝒇 𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔
. 14 0
45 0 Top Width of Embankment = 76 ft .

∆𝝈𝒇𝒇𝒇𝒇 𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎 =
13 0
. .
40 0 12 0
𝑾+𝟐 𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺 𝑯𝑬𝑬𝑬. .
35 0
.
11 0
.
10 0
. .
30 0 90
.
. 80
25 0

𝑨𝑬𝑬𝑬 = 𝑾 + 𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺 𝑯𝑬𝑬𝑬 𝑯𝑬𝑬𝑬

.
70
. .
20 0 60
.
. 50
15 0

𝑨𝒘𝒘𝒘𝒘𝒘 𝒆𝒆𝒆. = 𝑾 + 𝟐 𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺 𝑯𝒑𝒑𝒑𝒑. + 𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺 𝑯𝑬𝑬𝑬. 𝑯𝑬𝑬𝑬. . .

FS = 1 5 40
. . .
10 0 FS = 2 0 30
. .
.
50 FS = 2 5 20

𝑨𝒇𝒇𝒇𝒇 𝒔𝒔𝒔𝒔 = 𝑨𝒘𝒘𝒘𝒘𝒘 𝒆𝒆𝒆. − 𝑨𝑬𝑬𝑬

. .
FS = 3 0 10
. .
00 00
250 500 750 1,000 1,250 1,500 1,750 2,000 2,250 2,500 2,750

Undrained Shear Stren th, Su psf

 23

Development of Design Charts

Design charts to evaluate minimum thickness of EPS
geofoam layer (Bearing capacity controls the height of
Geofoam)

Comparisons of the
thickness of EPS
geofoam layer
 24

Long Term Assessments

 25

Long Term Assessments

 26

Acknowledgements
• TxDOT: Richard
Williammee, Jimmy Si,
Wade Blackmon

• RTI Office – Joe Adams,

Sonya Badgely and Wade
Odell

• UTA Geotech Research

Group
SARCI